Integrated Power and Truman Democrats Posted by Michael Signer

There's a new national security plan out from the Center for American Progress by Larry Korb and Bob Boorstin called Integrated Power.  Every progressive should study this road map not just through post-9/11 foreign policy but also through the political problems that have bedeviled a party since Vietnam -- how to recapture the energy, spirit, drive, and courage, internationally-speaking, of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.

The book is especially important in light of a debate we were having over here at Democracy Arsenal about just how we can go about rebuilding progressive strength on security.

A little background first.  A few weeks ago, I put up a post here synthesizing some values of "Truman Democrats" -- the new group of Democrats (of which I am a Principal) who have formed to try to reinvent the engaged, robust internationalism of Democrats past.  The piece said that six values should frame the underlying theory of an American left re-engaged on the international front:  American exceptionalism, acceptance of the use of force, hegemony, community, liberal-mindedness, and democracy.

There was a fair amount of reaction to the piece.  Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote it up at TPM Cafe, saying it "provocatively summarized" the "best nextgen foreign policy thinking I know."

Ivo Daalder then posted on the doctrine of American exceptionalism, arguing against the neocon version of exceptionalism, which prefers "triumphalism" and "moral superiority," in favor of the version framed by Barack Obama in a recent speech: 

And as people around the world began to hear the tale of the lowly colonists who overthrew an empire for the sake of an idea, they started to come.

The Slaugher and  Daalder posts led to a number of very well-written posts at TPM Cafe.  The reaction among the posters was largely positive, but a few asked why I had framed so many of the values in terms of neoconservatives; why was my theory just reactive, rather than purely and independently constructive?  Some also thought my approach was overly political.

There was also critical reaction here at home.  Susanne Nossel wrote a response essentially suggesting that some of my conclusions came perilously close to an embrace of American arrogance. 

I responded with a post titled "The Passions of the Left?" arguing that our problem is so severe that details are less important than the broad undercurrent of thought -- either we're engaged and passionate about American strength and our ability to use our power for good, or we're not. 

Heather Hurlburt then wrote a riposte that could be viewed as devastating:

I have some problems with Michael's principles, though not with his passion for them.  But more importantly, I think this particular lens is pointing us down the wrong road.  This lens is built directly around the Republican worldview that has dominated US politics since shortly after 9-11. 

The fundamental problem with this lens is that it is last year's lens, last election's lens, or even a just-before-the-Iraq-war lens.  It suggests that our problems are primarily military and confrontational in nature and can be solved with the tools of military confrontation first and foremost, if we have the guts to use them.

That's not the worldview that is going to allow Democrats to break through in White House, Congress and statehouse races.  To do that, we need a set of principles that focus on the next set of problems AND a way of presenting them that convinces Americans that progressives see the world the way it is and conservatives don't.  Otherwise, we've ceded the field of reality to conservatives -- a big mistake.

Finally, a Board Member of the Truman Project, my friend Julie Maupin, wrote a post disagreeing that the values I put forward were shared by all Trumans.  Julie especially took issue with the heavy emphasis I placed on the values of exceptionalism and hegemony:

Mike’s post fleshed out some key Truman Democratic ideals, and I’m grateful to him for provoking such thoughtful debate on the proper use of American power. Clearly, it’s a timely debate, a fiery debate, and a defining debate for our country and our party. Within this debate, the Truman National Security Project comes down strongly in favor of the principled and unabashed projection of American power. But when it comes to Mike’s endorsement of hegemony and exceptionalism as paradigms for that power, we don’t necessarily all agree.

Upon reflection, I've concluded that I could have improved on at least two things in the original post:

1)  The post made it seem that exceptionalism, hegemony -- as a sort of muscular trio -- were, by rank order, more important than the other values.  They're not.  The values are all of equal importance.  In other words, it's just as important to dedicate ourselves to the proposition that we are members of the world community as to recognize that we are leaders of that community.

2)  Both of the words "hegemony" and "exceptionalism" can, to certain folks, have such negative connotations of arrogance that their usefulness may be outweighed by the cost of the labor one needs to expend to make the case for their usefulness.  One astute commentator suggested "exemplarism" instead of exceptionalism, which I find compelling.  On hegemony, "leadership" works better.  Both are more forward-looking, and dovetail better with the quarterback message -- we lead, but through the approbation of our peers, and by the moral force of our accomplishments.

I do think the real issue is getting down a theory to guide progressives back to an embrace of America's international strength.  But we need a harder strategic plan of how to realize this approach in practice.  And we need perhaps a more parsimonious theory -- one concept, rather than six "values" -- to guide our practice.

All of this comes together in the spectacular proposal by Korb and Boorstin.

Integrated Power presents a terrific example of how the power of the progressive intellect can be brought to bear on problem of the United States' post-9/11 security environment, and the post-Cold War arena.  The principal achivement of the report is to dissolve the boundary between hard and soft power (that's what "integrated" means), with an emphasis on growing American power toward the right goals -- toward thoughtful and future-oriented leadership.  But this theory leads to a panoply of robust, reasonable policy proposals.

Here's how the authors put their theory:

America's interests are best achieved through a multidimensional approach that spurns the false dichotomy between the concepts of "hard" and "soft" power and views them instead as two strands of the same cord.  By merging the many and varied powers of the United States - military, economic, political, cultural, and diplomatic, among others - the country will be in the strongest position to address threats, prevent conflicts, and recapture its moral leadership.

The authors recognize three specific challenges the contemporary world poses to the United States:  global terrorist networks, extreme regimes, and weak and failing states.  The problem is that the current Administration's hidebound approach has "not only been ineffective at confronting these threats, but it has eroded America's global leadership position and exposed us to new dangers."

At the same time (and this addresses Heather Hurlburt's point about constructing Truman values that look forward, not backward), the authors note that there's enormous opportunity for American strength to pivot in a new direction:

"[T]he United States is - or can be - poised to benefit from four forces of integration:  globalization, democratization, the emergence of new powers, and advances in technology.  Using the concept of integrated power as the foundation of a new approach, the strategy presented articulates three primary principles to guide our policies:  first, protect the American people; second, prevent conflict - primarily through engagement; and third, lead vital alliances and modernized international institutions.

It all ends up with lots of specific policy proposals -- all of which exploit America's power position, with an eye to strengthening America, not pursuing wild-eyed ideological schemes:

Attack Global Terrorist Networks

• Enlarge the active duty Army by 86,000 troops.
• Reengage in the Middle East peace process.
• Create a credible exit strategy from Iraq; clearly state our intention not to maintain any permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan.
• Enhance intelligence and law enforcement capabilities and punish terrorist financers.
• Engage in a broad public diplomacy campaign designed to counter distorted perceptions of U.S. policies and values.

Counter the Nuclear Threat

• Engage in both multilateral and bilateral discussions with Iran and North Korea.
• Condition fulfillment of $3 billion of foreign aid to Pakistan on full access to A.Q. Khan
• Double funding to secure nuclear weapons and materials.
• Stop developing new nuclear bunker buster weapons.
• Develop a new nuclear posture for deployment and disarmament of our nuclear force.

Protect the Homeland

• Improve intelligence sharing within the federal government and establish Homeland Security Operations Centers in critical locations to improve the flow of threat information between federal and state and local authorities.
• Implement action plans to protect critical infrastructure such as ports, nuclear power plants, and chemical plants.
• Reexamine visa policies that have significantly slowed the flow of scholars, scientists, and students coming to the United States.

Prevent Conflict, Promote Prosperity

• Support the "responsibility to protect" doctrine and exert leadership to stop genocide in Darfur.
• Establish a new Department of International Development to oversee foreign assistance and conflict-prevention programs.
• Meet Millennium Development goals by increasing foreign assistance five-fold to 0.7 percent of GNP by 2015.
• Lead an aggressive effort to achieve final agreement in the Doha Development Round of international trade negotiations.

Advance Democracy

• Go beyond rhetoric and provide enduring support for democratic institutions and the rule of law.
• Monitor and press for human rights no matter the country.
• Work with democratic allies to support opposition movements in countries oppressed by tyranny.

Pursue Energy independence

• Recognize that energy policy is integral to our national security policy and work to achieve energy independence.
• Increase energy efficiency in transportation, new buildings, and household appliances.
• Deploy renewable energy sources by requiring that 25 percent of our electricity comes from  renewable sources, investing in biofuels, and investing in the development of future fuels.
• Modernize America's energy infrastructure.

We should all study this report carefully.  We may have disagreements with particular concepts or specific policy proposals.  But this forest is vastly more important than its trees.

We're on our way.  So let's keep moving!

Comments

[John Robert BEHRMAN]

Where are these Truman Democrats?

In the center of my party, all I see are Vichy and Enron Democrats, legacies of the old Hold Harmless Democrats -- perpetually incumbent office-tenders or squatters with little or no credibilty in the party and hardly any interests beyond sinecures or rotten boroughs the GOP might give them.

Maybe a few of them can still suck-up to any vested interest, but can they "suck-it up" in the drill-sergeant sense of the term.

Take +86k active-duty Army?

Only a fraction of the Army has any role in counter-terrorist ops at all.

So, what is the new doctrine, what are the units, which Colonels will be promoted and where will all the left-over flag and field-grade officers go?

Would they go into mutinies and treasons ex-spooks organize and foreign powers fund?

Roosevelt did not court-martial McArthur for sheer incomptence after Pearl Harbor nor Trumman for insubordination after relieving him in Korea. Truman quit after one term rather than face Red-Baiters and Segregationists in his own party who would not back him in conflicts in or around the Pentagon. Forrestal killed himself.

And, what did the original Truman Democrats do after the Kennedy Assassination? Why, they stopped any sort of military reform and just threw money at, well, guns and butter.

I am a centrist Democrat, but I am sick of the corruption and cowardice in the middle of my party, especially the higher up the old Jim Crow patronage chain you go.

That is all the Democratic Party is now, a racially inclusive but financially elite and professionally parochial patronage-chain that defers to Moderate Republicans, even if there are none. This is a party of two-bit lawyers mostly that is not up to the profound challenges of responsible, two-party government.

My party left Harry S. Truman to retire a Colonel in the U. S. Army Field Artillery Reserve Officer Corps -- the last President to have ever served in a militia.

[Owen]

"how to recapture the energy, spirit, drive, and courage, internationally-speaking, of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy"

I suggest a recruiting campaign for returning vets and active duty folks.

Don't focus on anti-war activists like 1970s Kerry (they've got their own thing), but soldiers who want to improve military policy. Patriotic soldiers like the guy who asked Rumsfeld about equipment shortages and others who tell the truth to the press seem to be good candidates.

A "farm league" system that supports a large number of them running for local and state offices and promotes promising candidates could be very effective for party building.

[David Billington]

Owen,

"I suggest a recruiting campaign for returning vets and active duty folks. A "farm league" system that supports a large number of them running for local and state offices and promotes promising candidates could be very effective for party building."

Veterans are the kinds of Americans that any party would want at its grass roots. Returning veterans tend to become pillars of the communities they call home and they do not ask for much in return. But I wonder if it is a good idea to single out active duty personnel and veterans in this way. The real question is whether the party deserves veteran support. Instead of trying to recruit veterans as candidates, I would work instead to ensure that the party's own culture and platform reflect a respect for military service and for the missions of the armed forces.

[David Billington]

Michael,

It is difficult to see this document as something more than a proposal to execute the Republican foreign policy of the last few years with greater competence, and then balance it with Democratic priorities. Unless the Republicans seriously fall down on national security, I'm not sure this is enough to differentiate the Democratic party. This document is very much a think tank product full of sensible particulars. But it doesn't say what to do if its recommendations for negotiation and multilateralism fail in contexts where Republicans have either failed or not tried. On Iran, for example, the document writes as follows:

"If talks [to persuade Iran not to go nuclear] fail, however, Iran must know that the United States and its European allies will refer Iran to the U.N.Security Council for possible enforcement action and explore other multilateral avenues for isolating the regime. We would also open discussions with Iran’s neighbors with the goal of averting a regional arms race and preventing a near-nuclear Iran from threatening the United States or its neighbors. The leaders in Tehran and throughout the world must also understand that any attempt to use or transfer nuclear weapons or their key components would result in decisive military action."

The authors cannot be unaware that the U.N. Security Council is unlikely to reach agreement on possible enforcement action. The authors do suggest that other multilateral avenues for isolating the Tehran regime exist but they do not say what measures would actually be effective. If China and possibly Russia do not support U.N. sanctions, they will probably not cooperate with efforts to isolate Iran. China is building pipelines into Central Asia to facilitate access to Caspian oil and there is no reason why Iran couldn't build a pipeline to the Caspian to supply China's rising demand. Iran is building a pipeline to India to export natural gas. America isn't going to place sanctions on China or India to stop these things.

We might prevent Iran from acquiring technology and credit from the West but Iran does not urgently need these. Iran needs jobs for its youthful population but outside capital would have the short-term effect, as it has in China, of enforcing efficiencies on featherbedded industries. The mullahs have shown no desire to reform their economy in this way. If one talks about other measures to isolate the regime, these must not only be suggested but specified to make a convincing case that they would actually be effective.

The authors go on to say that we would open discussions with Iran's neighbors to avert a regional arms race and prevent Iran from threatening its neighbors, and that we would threaten military action if Iran uses or tries to export nuclear weapons and technology. With these two sentences, however, the authors make clear that we would acquiesce in a nuclear Iran if the measures suggested in the first sentence do not dissuade Tehran from building nuclear weapons. All we would do is prevent Iran from threatening its neighbors or making irresponsible use of its weapons. But if this is the bottom line, how does that differ from what Republicans confronting the same situation would do?

I would urge you and your group to subject these kinds of documents to more careful scrutiny, to ask hard questions about what each sentence and each idea really means, and to identify those ideas circulating in Democratic policy circles that stand up to such examination. Your own standing as a group will rise if you can show such independence and rigor and can then make constructive criticisms and proposals of your own.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[ghd]

ghd IV salon styler,ghd purple roll bag.

product features:


Auto sleep mode(A built in safety feature that gives you peace of mind by turning off if the ghd IV styler is left unallended for 30 minutes.)


Universal voltage(So that you can use your styler in any country without an adaptor.)


Advanced ceramic heaters(The ultimate heating technology for the ultimate shine and style creation.)

All our products are cheap,if you want to find cheap ghd,come here and that is right.

If you want to find GHD hair products,you can write GHD straightener,GHD hair straighteners,GHD straightners,GHD hair,straighteners GHD in google browse.